W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > June 2010

Re: Working Group Decision on ISSUE-91: Removing the aside Element

From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2010 04:16:37 +0200
To: Shelley Powers <shelleyp@burningbird.net>
Cc: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, public-html@w3.org
Message-ID: <20100602041637625528.547e0a6d@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Shelley Powers, Tue, 01 Jun 2010 20:41:39 -0500:
> Leif Halvard Silli wrote:
>> Shelley Powers, Tue, 01 Jun 2010 19:03:45 -0500:

> My change proposals included this information so that people could 
> follow what happened: originally I believed the elements needed 
> tighter definition, but after research and additional thought, I 
> believed they needed to be removed.

I understand the motivation, but I think you should have removed the 
history part from your proposal.

> I could not respond on the survey questions because I was not a 
> member of the group, and had lost edit and response privileges. I 
> couldn't even correct any errors in the change proposals, including 
> some formatting errors, which may have led to more confusion.

It may have.

> However, I did hope that people would read through the entire 
> proposal before responding in the survey.

I read the correct version of your change proposal now, and didn't spot 
important things that I had missed.

Regardless: To first have offered one variant where you suggested to 
tighten <figure> for then to offer another variant where you suggested 
to remove <figure>, may easily be interpreted as if your objection to 
<figure> were not unsurmountable.
-- 
leif halvard silli
Received on Wednesday, 2 June 2010 02:17:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:18 UTC